Human-world claims below are kept separate from Fred and Visitor editorial/lore. Translation changes language, not evidence status.
Witness typeswitness observing from home
Sensor typesNot stated
Evidence typeswitness report, official GEIPAN case record, no photograph, no corroborating reports
The observation occurred on July 17, 2013, at around 11:50 p.m.
Claim #16455 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“On July 17, 2013, at around 11:50 p.m., a witness observed a luminous, stationary white phenomenon from his home.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Description paragraph
A witness observed a stationary white luminous phenomenon from home; the observation lasted one minute, the phenomenon reappeared 30 seconds after going out, and then disappeared permanently.
Claim #16456 // ATTRIBUTED CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“The observation lasted one minute before the phenomenon went out, then lit up again 30 seconds later before disappearing permanently.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Description paragraph
No other reports were collected.
Claim #16457 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“No other reports were collected.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Description paragraph
The case record lists the region as Poitou-Charentes and the department as Vienne.
Claim #16458 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Region
Poitou-Charentes
Department
Vienne”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Case details
The case is classified as C.
Claim #16459 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“Classification
C”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Case details
GEIPAN considered the possibility that a planet temporarily hidden by clouds could have produced the reported impression, but the sky chart did not reveal a bright celestial body to the southeast.
Claim #16460 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“GEIPAN considered several hypotheses for this case: - astronomical hypothesis: a planet, temporarily hidden by clouds, could have given this impression, but the sky chart does not reveal any bright celestial body to the southeast.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0001]] Description paragraph
GEIPAN considered sunlight reflected by a satellite, but stated that the effect would have been shorter and would not have remained fixed for one minute.
Claim #16461 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“the effect would have been roughly the same, but shorter, and it would not have remained fixed for one minute.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
A CalSky check showed several satellites passing through the witness's field of view and two Iridium satellite flares at 11:45 p.m. and 11:54 p.m., but in a direction opposite to the one indicated by the witness.
Claim #16462 // FACTUAL CLAIM // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“A check using the CalSky website shows several satellites passing through the witness's field of view at the indicated time, as well as two flashes (flares) from Iridium satellites at 11:45 p.m. and 11:54 p.m., but in a direction opposite to the one indicated by the witness.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
GEIPAN considered an aircraft viewed head-on with its landing light on as a plausible explanation for the appearance of a fixed point, but this hypothesis could not be confirmed in time with air traffic.
Claim #16463 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 95% extraction confidence
“This hypothesis could not be confirmed in time with air traffic.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
The case was considered not particularly strange and of average consistency because the report was unique and there was no photograph; it was classified C due to a lack of corroborating information.
Claim #16464 // ASSESSMENT // SOURCED // 99% extraction confidence
“This observation case, which was not particularly strange and had average consistency because of the uniqueness of the report and the absence of a photograph, is classified as “C” due to a lack of corroborating information.”
Source: JAUNAY-CLAN (86) 17.07.2013
// [[T0002]] Description continuation
